Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[marc71178]

I'll have an 8th of what you're smoking.

You won't, because Liam's already caught up with him.

 

[tooextracool]

Test Comparison
Marshall: 81 Matches, 376 wickets@ 20.94, SR: 46.7, Economy: 2.68 rpo
Lillee: 70 Matches, 355 wickets@ 23.92, SR: 52.0, Economy: 2.75 rpo

ODI Comparison
Marshall: 136 Matches, 157 wickets@ 26.96, SR: 45.7, Economy: 3.53 rpo
Lillee: 63 Matches, 103 wickets@ 20.82, SR: 34.8, Economy: 3.58 rpo

yet neither of them made it....im quite surprised as i would have expected the list to feature the best fast bowler ever along with the best spinner,best batsman and the best all rounder

 

[luckyeddie]

yet neither of them made it....im quite surprised as i would have expected the list to feature the best fast bowler ever along with the best spinner,best batsman and the best all rounder

Marshall would have made the list for me too if it was based on the criteria you suggest.

It's difficult to judge Marshall's impact on the game as a whole - but he certainly made an impact on enough batsmen. Maybe he was just looked upon as one member of the greatest fast bowling attack the game's ever seen.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Try telling that to Hampshire supporters - they seem to be quite happy with
him.

He certainly seems to be getting the best out of the likes of Mascarenhas (for one)

He was talking about Tendulkar.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Richards was absolutely awesome, but Tendulkar is a ball tamperer and does not deserve to be in such good company. Plus he is a lousy captain which indicates that he is only concerned with his own game. When it comes to team players Tendulkar is a self centered batsman that does nothing for the team.

Are you able to post without trying to start a flame war?

 

[PY]

He was talking about Tendulkar.

Afraid not Neil, orangepitch was making comment referring to Warne's captaincy abilities.

Whether it was tongue-in-cheek, he only knows.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Afraid not Neil, orangepitch was making comment referring to Warne's captaincy abilities.

Whether it was tongue-in-cheek, he only knows.

It appears that it's a rip-off of Scallywag's anti-Tendulkar post.

I haven't read closely enough

 

[Scallywag]

This is what I'm talking about when I say Tendulkar should not be among the great cricketers.

"Tendulkar examined by Madhavan over 1999 Ahmedabad Test
1 July 2001

The Vigilance Commissioner of India's cricket Board, K Madhavan has examined batting mastreo Sachin Tendulkar in connection with the controversial Ahmedabad Test match in 1999 when India did not enforce the follow-on against New Zealand despite being in a position to do so.

This is part of a cricinfo article."

On top of the ball tampering this man has no morals.

 

[a massive zebra]

Was Gavaskar as good as Richards??? NO

Although most people would agree with you, I think this is debatable. Richards never had to face the mighty West Indies bowlers yet Gavaskar still finished with a slightly superior career record. Furthermore, Richards record against the best opposition available at his time (Pakistan and New Zealand) is comparatively modest, while Gavaskar's record against the mighty West Indians is commendable. Also because the West Indies were so good Richards was rarely under pressure as a batsmen. Conversely, almost every innings that Gavaskar played was important because the Indians were nowhere near as good as West Indies. Yet Gavaskar's record is still slightly better.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You won't, because Liam's already caught up with him.

That would be Ian.

 

[Mecnun]

Was Qadir as good as Warne???? NO
Was Gavaskar as good as Richards??? NO
Was Akram as good as Lillee??? NO

Yeah they were as good if not better with the exception of Qadir however criteria WAS not just who is better in 'your opinon'.Wasim v Lille.. no contest. Sunny v Richards..close, very close with Sunny taking the edge IMO.

 

[Linda]

I don't think Lillee was the complete fast bowler. Even Rod Marsh admitted he had weaknesses against left-handers and he was not that great at running through the tail.

All that says is he is human. Believe it or not, even cricketers cant be perfect! (and yes, sometimes it IS hard to believe!)

 

[a massive zebra]

All that says is he is human. Believe it or not, even cricketers cant be perfect! (and yes, sometimes it IS hard to believe!)

Don Bradman had odd days of near perfection (ie 309 not out at Headingly in 1930 and a 22 ball century in Australia a couple of years later). Beat that!!

 

[Linda]

Don Bradman had odd days of near perfection (ie 309 not out at Headingly in 1930 and a 22 ball century in Australia a couple of years later). Beat that!!

Ok, well the 309* couldve been 310*, which would be closer to perfection.
The 22-ball century could've been a 17-ball century (ie a 6 off every ball).

Granted, Bradman's pretty close to perfection, there's no denying that! You wont hear complaints from me about calling him perfect

 

[marc71178]

Wasim v Lille.. no contest..

I know, so what's your problem with people putting Lillee ahead of Wasim?

 

[Mecnun]

I know, so what's your problem with people putting Lillee ahead of Wasim?

Absoloutely none. What made you think I had a problem with Lille ahead of Wasim in some people's opinions?

 

[twctopcat]

And one more thing, Warne for me is any day better than Murali. We have to keep in mind that Murali is the only strike bowler in SL, bowls 40% of their overs, and thus is bound to take more wickets than Warne, who might be bowling only 25% of Australia's overs when he is bowling. Plus, Warne has had the might of McGrath and Gillespie around him, who were as eager to pick up wickets as he.

If that argument was the case then surely Murali would have a larger s/r then warne, but in fact it's better (58.9 compared to 59.7), which shows there both as penetrative as each other, irrespective of who they're bowling with, therefore that argument is wasted. Why do people try and rank them. They're both awesome so chill out and leave it as that.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

Scallywag or whatever, you seem to be on the hunt for a war. Tendulkar and ball tampering...yeah right. It was a biased match referee who found 6 people in the Indian team guilty of ball tampering. I find that very hard to beleive. Tendulkar was innocent. He has not even got into a verbal spat with an opposition player in his career to date. Same can't be said of the australian players who are such bad role models, especially warne. Who gets into a fight with a kid just coz he caught him smoking? Only the drug cheat. He does not deserve to be in that list at all.

IMO, looking at the records of Richards, Gavaskar and Tendulkar......Tendulkar comes first, Gavaskar second and Richards only third. Still Richards finds his name in the top five. That's a farce. Tendulkar has a much better record than him against EVERY team.

 

[PY]

If this thread turns into another mud-slinging fest then it'll just be shut.

One needs to bite one's hands before posting.

 

[marc71178]

Still Richards finds his name in the top five. That's a farce. Tendulkar has a much better record than him against EVERY team.

Firstly you're looking at records post 2000 which are irrelevant.

Secondly, Viv's character was immense and makes him all the more memorable.

I don't recall too many complaints about him at the time.